1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Merge: Report: Joe Philbin wanted to replace Ryan Tannehill with Derek Carr

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by muskrat21, Jan 10, 2016.

  1. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    Skimming through.. Had to stop reading at "weak correlation between pass blocking and QB play". LOL. Dear lord that's rich.
    Is it just me or is this thread is starting to feel very shouright-y?
     
  2. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    One further thought on the bolded portion above: there are times when common sense is wrong and "uncommon sense" is right. If we don't explore that possibility by using something objective to measure the variables involved in the situation and determining how they interact, we're prone to making the mistake of thinking our common sense is correct, when in fact it might not be.

    At the very least, that exploration could leave us with a "we don't know for sure," rather than too certain a belief that our common sense is correct about the matter.

    In this case, for example, it's entirely possible that there is such little variation in offensive lines across the league that it can't possibly explain the much larger variation in QB play. Another possibility is that the individual ability of QBs is so influential that it outweighs the variation in offensive lines by a significant margin.

    Either of those possibilities, if true, would indicate that the common-sense belief that QBs are affected significantly by offensive lines is incorrect.

    Then there is another possibility, as well, that the variation in offensive line play is actually caused by the variation in QB play. That finding, if true, would also nullify the common-sense belief in the relationship between offensive line and QB play, by effectively reversing it. QB play would cause offensive line play, rather than vice-versa.

    All of these are possibilities. We certainly shouldn't rest on believing our common sense is correct in the absence of even any mere exploration of those possibilities. Human beings aren't that great at knowing the truth about things based on our intuition alone.
     
  3. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    What's even more rich is when people don't have the basic humility to admit that the issue should be subjected to some objective exploration, rather than thinking they're correct about the matter simply because they believe they are.

    Subject the matter to exploration. You can still be right in the end, but at least it'll be based on something more than just a personal belief. If you "stop reading" before you do that, you may fail to learn something.

    Sometimes these debates revolve around the participants' openness to learning. When someone shows a reluctance to learn for some reason, there is really no room for purposeful debate, because the possibility for the consideration and acceptance of new information is nil.
     
  4. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    I don't know, but it does feel pathetic and sad.
     
    dgfred likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No.

    Your "objective data" is incomplete. It doesn't tell the whole story, which is par for the course on stats and all tools.

    You over rely on stats and have for years. The data is there, its been put into the debate, it didn't however end it.

    You've literally ignored common sense and tape since you've been posting here, and every time, you get your *** handed to you.

    Hell, you never even acknowledged that it takes two people doing their jobs correctly to create a completion. Its that kind of common sense denial that gets you banned every time you come back.
     
    resnor and Sceeto like this.
  6. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    Yes.

    Now, wasn't that productive?
     
  7. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, gonna need the stats to know if it was or wasn't. Right?
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  8. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    Nope. No arrogance here at all.
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  9. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Are you kidding me? Look at the way others have acted aswell. Why are you labeling a guy over history and instead if whats in this thread? He is providing data for those who feel like that is what makes a solid argument. Me? I just am not to high on what Ive watched wvery Sunday....i rely on things other than data like eyes.

    Either way what he is bringing right or wrong is a data filled argument, which some of you clamor for...now because you do not agree with it he is being a dick.

    You guys need to do some soul searching.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  10. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    We need to do some soul searching.... Not the guy who's been banned atleast a dozen times for the exact same things.
     
    dgfred, Fin D and resnor like this.
  11. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    He has been less condescending and less of a douchbag than alot of guy's in this thread. And now like some jaded school girls you run and tell the teacher that X was being mean to you. [emoji26][emoji26]

    What he is doing is adding to the discussion, what are you doing besides crying?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Adding to the discussion? Not really, he's doing exactly what he's always done, and has gotten banned for. He took stats about run blocking, ignored them, and tried to turn it into pass blocking, so that he could do what he always does, which is use one part of an evaluation to try to prove that Tannehill is average.

    If someone claims that you can't define how much effect that a run game has on the offense, then one shouldn't simply make statements, based on one-sided stats, as if they have an answer.
     
  13. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    At least he took stats about PASS blocking to tie it to the QB instead of the out of left field tying the run blocking to QB performance, which made absolutely no sense to me, Marino's line couldn't run block to save their lives, but they helped to keep their QBs jersey clean.

    I understand how being more balanced can help the QB, and not abandoning the run, but fail to see how run blocking performance is significant in helping the QB play better.
     
  14. Laurence

    Laurence Banned

    80
    19
    0
    Jan 20, 2016
    Folks, I entered the thread with a post that took me about two hours of work to complete, based on my own research and analysis. The findings in that post were favorable to Ryan Tannehill, in that they suggested that improvements to the offensive line and the coaching alone could very well be associated with a 10-6 record, via improvements in Tannehill's play.

    Since that post, my other posts in the thread have advocated simply for balance in our analysis of the team, and the use of objective information to investigate our beliefs, again presenting information here and there that reflected a decent bit of work on my part.

    As it has in the past, that has somehow devolved to a paranoia-driven discussion about me and what I do, with my being portrayed as some sort of villain who's committed some sort of evil.

    That to me suggests there is a cult-like dynamic going on here (i.e., "burn him at the stake!"), and that really isn't healthy for anyone to be a part of in my opinion.

    Take care folks. I gave it a try. My best to you all, sincerely. :)
     
  15. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'll make you a deal.....I'll stop outing Shou every time he tries to come back, if you stay consistent with your defense of people and not just limit it to people you agree with. If you take Finster or Rock Sexton or BigNasty, etc. to task for being dbags when we're not being condescending, then as I said, I'll leave shou alone....fair?
     
    resnor likes this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think pff had a stat that showed average passer rating is 95 or so without pressure (as they define it) vs. 60 with pressure. So while the absolute amount of time a QB has depends on a lot of things (OL, QB, play design, etc..) the relative amount of time - same QB with same OL and same type of play - matters tremendously. You don't get a 95 vs. 60 difference in passer rating if the OL doesn't have a HUGE effect on QB play, and obviously huge variance.

    And that btw is also common sense. Just watch what happens when someone on the OL hardly blocks the defensive guy and the QB can't do what he intended to do. Anyway, point is it's clear the OL has a huge influence on QB play. That's not difficult to argue, even with stats.

    What's difficult to determine is the relative impacts of the OL and QB on the final outcome. For that, there is no statistical technique that works as long as the same OL and QB keep playing together (if you had enough turnover in the OL or QB, you could solve this problem statistically, but that just doesn't happen often enough).

    This is the best example of ignoring common sense. You can't ignore causal relationships when looking at stats. How can for example a QB cause a guard (see Dallas Thomas) to miss a block if the play calls for the QB to stand in the pocket?

    Oh, and from a statistical viewpoint, when you have 5 guys on the OL, that's adding the variances of 5 individual players. Just naturally, you'd expect a good deal of variance due to those players. Anyway, we can effectively reject your suggestion above. Once again, the difficulty lies in estimating the relative contribution of the OL vs. QB. That both matter and that there is variance due to both isn't up for dispute.
     
    resnor likes this.
  17. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    There are more than a few guys im sometimes ashamed to share a SIMILAR opinion with.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Fin D likes this.
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Actually, tied to OFFENSIVE performance. But, as usual, you boil offensive performance down to only the QB.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  19. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    You are extorting forum posters? Really?

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
    Finster likes this.
  20. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sure.
     
  21. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Kudos to Laurence and cbrad for engaging in substantive debate. The rest of the posters should all be infracted for what ultimately reflects poorly on the site itself.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That is of course, bull crap.

    The debate was substantive before they posted and no one treated him like crap until he went full arrogant Shou. He comes into threads, drops a bomb he knows is going to piss people off then starts ignoring their responses. Its very Omar like.
     
  23. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    FinD has violated the terms of the agreement.....ATTACK!!!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  24. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You never agreed to the agreement and I didn't out Shou again.

    [​IMG]
     
  25. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    Shou always outs Shou.
     
    resnor likes this.
  26. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Everyone knew Todd was Phinsational...but he changed his ways and has become a fine assett to the site.

    Give peace a chance.

    Someone being condescending in the mains certainly is not a huge issue in my book


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  27. Sceeto

    Sceeto Well-Known Member

    13,501
    6,246
    113
    Oct 13, 2008
    New York
    No. Actually in the past, many times, I would get along with shou, however, the post I quoted was indeed arrogant. I have also explained many many a time why basing you whole argument around stats is not a good idea, especially with football and that's where we disagree. I'm not defending anyone else here. I'm sure I've had disagreements with them as well. I'm fair bro. :pointlol:
     
    dgfred likes this.
  28. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    There is no acceptable reason to treat someone "like crap" on the site. People should be be subjected to personal attacks simply for making a point, even if you believe their point is miguided or factually inaccurate.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    There's even less acceptable reasons for a poster whose been banned multiple times, to come in under yet another account, and disrupt the board again. There's even less reason to congratulate that poster as you did.

    But the truth is, he wasn't treated poorly. But hey facts, who needs 'em, amirite?
     
  30. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Im with ya on the numbers theory, they are something that may apply to baseball but football is a whole different set of circumstantial factors.

    You know what impressed me about Dan Marino? It wasn't the fact that he threw for 5000 yards in an era where it was unheard of to throw for 4000....it was the way he threw the football with such velocity and anticipation.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Sceeto likes this.
  31. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Just look at Manning, in his career he was sacked an average of 17 times per season over many different iterations of o-lines, different coaches and even different teams. His worst season was 29 sacks. Does Manning always coincidentally happen to have one of the leagues greatest o-line? I don't think so, I think he would average 17 and max out at 30 behind any o-line. Manning is your baseline and even he is not perfect, he is still responsible for at least some of the sacks himself.

    So if you swap out Tannehill for Manning and the sacks drop from 50 to 30 then how can you blame anybody but the QB for those extra 20 sacks?
     
  32. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    So now the argument against Ryan is that he isn't Manning?
     
    dgfred and resnor like this.
  33. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    So it wasn't in defense of Tanne, riiight.
     
  34. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Who is launching personal attacks on the poster formerly known as Shouright?
     
  35. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Once again, you do what you complain about others doing.
     
  36. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    Carr better then Tannehill, the conversation should be is Tannehill better then Fitzpatrick?
     
  37. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    The moderators have plenty of tools at their disposal to ensure the rules are enforced. So long as he or she is a poster on this forum, they shouldn't be attacked. If you think someone is breaking the rules, the report it. The staff will handle accordingly.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
     
  38. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yes, because their situations are so similar that one can definitively draw accurate comparisons of the two.
     
  39. dgfred

    dgfred Free Agent pickup

    642
    259
    0
    Dec 17, 2015
    N.C., USA
    Before Fitzpatrick is ever mentioned just eye his last game of the season.
     
  40. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    I dont need to debate anymore, Tannehills play is speaking for itself and hes very average with a lack of football IQ that our bum organization paid big money to lead us to another underwhelming season, the guy is a coach killer and offensive player killer. I would stay as far away from him as I could if i was a player, especially an OL or WR.
     

Share This Page